See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317154529

A Key Management Techniques in Wireless Sensor Networks

Article in Communications on Applied Electronics · May 2017

DOI: 10.5120/cae2017652600

CITATIONS READS

7 1,211

3 authors, including:

Eda xan Salah Ayman El-Sayed

University of Sulaimani Menoufia University
2 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 179 PUBLICATIONS 1,310 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mobile Edge Computing View project

HPFE: a new secure framework for serving multi-users with multi-tasks in public cloud without violating SLA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ayman El-Sayed on 18 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE) – ISSN : 2394-4714
Foundation of Computer Science FCS, New York, USA
Volume 7 – No.2, May 2017 – www.caeaccess.org

A Key Management Techniques in Wireless Sensor

Networks

Ahmed S. Elqusy Salah E. Essa Ayman El-Sayed

Computer Science & Eng. Computer Science & Eng. Computer Science & Eng.
Dept., Dept., Dept.,
Faculty of Electronic Eng., Faculty of Electronic Eng., Faculty of Electronic Eng.,
Menoufia University, Menouf Menoufia University, Menouf Menoufia University, Menouf
32952, Egypt 32952, Egypt 32952, Egypt

ABSTRACT At the framework level, the requests from key administration

Wireless sensor networks are visualized in military, medicinal
services applications and business, where the data at these
filed is very important. Security of the information in the
system relies on the cryptographic strategy and the techniques
in which encryption and decryption keys are built up among
the nodes. Dealing with the keys in the system incorporates
node validation, key understanding and key refresh stages
which represents an extra overhead on system assets. Both
Symmetric and Asymmetric key methods when connected
independently in WSN neglects to give a design reasonable to
extensive variety of utilizations.
Keywords
Key Management, Encryption, RSA, ECC, Symmetric
Encryption, Asymmetric Encryption, Hybrid Encryption.
1. INTRODUCTION
Wireless sensor networks (WSN's) are being utilized as a part
of extensive variety of military and business applications. A
WSN comprises of small asset limited sensor nodes and
unique checking device named as base station. Sensor nodes
go about as the skin, which gather the information from
encompassing condition and forward to the base station, the
cerebrum of the system, controls the information stream.
WSN innovation is relied upon to assume critical part in not
so distant future as the methods for worldwide information
communication. ‘Internet of things’ [1] thought, proposed as
of late, considers WSN as the essential component to
assemble information.
The gathered information is then made all-inclusive accessible
by interfacing numerous little WSNs to the Internet. In such
situation, data gathered by WSN's would have risen above
esteem contrasted with its past little scale application. Thusly,
security of the data additionally assumes an important part.
Confidentiality, Integrity and Authenticity of the information
gathered are the fundamental issues in sensor network
security. Remote nature of the system alongside the absence
of computational capacity of sensor nodes postures many
difficulties in the execution of security protocols for wireless
sensor network. Key Management strategy is the important
part of any system security conspire. Secured direct for
information transmission in a WSN is given by key formation
protocol.
The outline of key management protocol for the most part
focusses on the utilization of assets like memory, power and
the time of processing of the scheme, versatility against
different assaults, communicating overhead and adaptability.
procedure being flexibility against node catch, forward secret,
in reverse secret, node disavowal on intrusion detection and
security against system level assaults. Both symmetric and
asymmetric key methods utilized for PC systems neglect to
fulfill these WSN particular security prerequisites.
Requirements in WSN is considered as: Energy imperatives,
Memory restrictions, Unreliable Communication, Unreliable
Transfer, Conflicts, Latency, lastly unattended operation of
systems.
Additionally there are a security issues which drives the
analysts to assess any security framework. Which are: Data
privacy, Data Integrity, Data freshness, Availability, Self-
association, Time, synchronization, Secure Localization,
Authentication, and Non-disavowal. In wireless sensor
network, customary security procedures can't be connected
straightforwardly. WSNs are developing quickly in numerous
viewpoints, in this manner security component for WSN
ought to be refreshed also. WSN works in outside condition
where they are unattended, so security ought to be considered
in the outline stage [2].
Security in WSN can be constructed into two types,
operational and data security. Operational security implies that
the system ought to have the capacity to give benefits
regardless of the possibility that some of its parts come up
short or progress toward becoming traded off. Data security
implies that the system ought not to reveal any mystery data,
in addition to it ought to ensure uprightness and legitimacy of
the messages. Security is a basic necessity for WSN, the
information and hub ought to be ensured against assaults like
listening in, treating, DOS assault [3], and so on. When
outlining a security model for WSN, all these sort of assaults
ought to be considered and security ought to be characterized
on various layers to guarantee high level to reliability.
Targets. Which primitives are best for a given target will be
controlled by the fundamental properties of the primitives.
Key management is a center component to guarantee security
in system administrations and applications in WSNs. The
objective of key management is to build up the keys among
the nodes in a protected and secure way. Likewise, the key
management scheme must bolster node expansion and
renouncement in the system. Since the nodes in a WSN have
computational and control imperatives, the key management
protocol for these networks must be to a great degree light-
weight.
Any key management schemes needs four fundamental
capacities, particularly Key examinations or key investigation,

8
 Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE) – ISSN : 2394-4714
Foundation of Computer Science FCS, New York, USA
Volume 7 – No.2, May 2017 – www.caeaccess.org
Key task, Key era, and Key Pre-distribution. These capacities
have been firmly combined with each other and it is done by a
server that is centralized or the collaboration of sensor nodes
in the network.
Similarly as with any system, we can assess nature of a key
management conspire by assessing its properties. In [5, 4],
authors distinguish nine such real properties.
Memory impression – It is clear from the specialized
determination of most remote sensor nodes that their memory
is altogether obliged. In this manner limiting the measure of
the put away information, together with minimization of the
genuine foundation code, additionally put away in the
memory, is of significance. A perfect KMS from the memory
impression point of view ought to just store keys with
required gatherings, e.g., neighbors and additionally base
station.
Processing speed – Similarly, most normally utilized
microcontrollers are working on such low frequencies that
playing out a computationally concentrated operation, for
example, ECC point increase, may take up to seconds [7, 6]
and subsequently defer whatever other calculation from
performing on the nodes for a lot of time. Moreover,
performing microcontroller calculations can likewise
outstandingly fumes node's battery [8, 9] in this manner lessen
its lifetime.
Communication overhead – The correspondence overhead is
one of the major concentrations in current WSN convention
plans. Truth be told, it has been indicated [10, 8, 12] that
message transmission and gathering is normally the node's
greatest node's vitality utilization consider. Best KMSs for
WSNs ought to transmit as meager information as would be
prudent, in a perfect world be preloaded with all the mutual
privileged insights and no requirement for further
correspondence.
Network bootstrapping – During this eliminate nodes discover
their neighbors, build up keys with them, inspect the system's
topology for steering purposes and perform other abutted
errands. A perfect KMS ought to require no bootstrapping
stage as it is the most defenseless stage in the lifetime of a
sensor node. That is the time when there are altogether shared
insider facts put away and an assailant could typically trade
off vast bits of the system by securing these.
Network strength – This property communicates what effect
would an aggressor have on the system after catching an
(arrangement of) node(s). As remote sensor nodes are
considered physically uncertain, the majority of their mystery
information can be effectively gotten to by an assailant who
catches a hub. By catching a hub with a decent KMS, just
connections the hub is included in ought to end up traded off.
Connectivity – Connectivity works comparatively as in the
diagram hypothesis. It depicts the capacity of two hubs
(vertices) to set up a mutual mystery (an association).
More specific availability properties are:
Worldwide connectivity – Describes the likelihood of a safe
way between any two nodes being set up.
Local connectivity – Describes the likelihood of any two
neighboring nodes sharing a mystery.
Node availability – Describes the likelihood of any two nodes
in the system sharing a mystery.
Scalability – A general system may be of self-assertive size.
Adaptability communicates what amount keying information a
node needs to store with respect to the measure of system. An
ideal KMS is putting away a little measure of keying material
that is either straightforwardly utilized as a mutual key with
different hubs or the key is processed in light of this material.
Extensibility – While versatility depicts the capacity to adapt
to huge number of hubs in the system, extensibility describes
its capacity to add new hubs to the system and build up shared
mysteries amid its lifetime. A perfect KMS ought to just store
keys it may need and in this manner ought to have the
capacity to set up keys with discretionary measure of new-
coming hubs.
Energy – The vitality property portrays how much vitality is
essential for a KMS to set up shared privileged insights. A
praiseworthy KMS ought to execute as meager calculation and
transmit as meager information as conceivable so as to
safeguard the greatest measure of vitality on the hub.
In the reset of the paper, a taxonomy of Key management
techniques will be presented in the next section. The
discussion of the work and analysis of the future research
trend will be proposed in section 3. Lastly, the conclusion of
the work is cleared in section 4.
2. TAXONOMIES OF KEY
MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE BASED
ON ENCRYPTION MECHANISMS.
As shown in Figure 1 numerous scientific categorizations for
KMSs have been displayed [13, 14, 16, 13, and 5].In [13]
Network structure – unified key methods, furthermore,
appropriated key methods. The brought together key
administration plans are those in light of a solitary substance
in charge of key era and dispersion, regularly called the key
dissemination focus (KDC). The main discovered illustrative
of this class at the season of distributing was the intelligent
key chain of importance plan [18], while the various
considered plans fit to the conveyed key plans classification.
Probability of key sharing – probabilistic key scheme, and
deterministic key scheme. The approach in view of the
likelihood of key sharing separates the probabilistic key
schemes and deterministic key schemes. A few
recommendations may consolidate these methodologies, or
utilize one for foundation of a class of keys and another for an
alternate class of keys, and none of these classes would fit.
The attacker model - the authors of [14] characterize a novel
characterization in view of the assailant demonstrate. They
characterize four assailant models and guide the beforehand
characterized key foundation conspire classes to the most
grounded aggressor demonstrate they are as yet secure under.
The assailant models are characterized as takes after:
Aggressor Model 1: in this model a foe can monitor the
communication between nodes after the keys has been
established establishment. No node catch assault is propelled
amid the lifetime of the system. The mapping of master key
based pre-distribution is happened in this level. Aggressor
Model 2: in this model an active assaults, for example, node
catch can occur after the setup of the key. Amid key setup,
observing is a slim chance. Aggressor Model 3: in this model
Communication checking is available directly after sending.
Then again, active assaults can just show up after setup of the
key.
9
 Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE) – ISSN : 2394-4714
Foundation of Computer Science FCS, New York, USA
Volume 7 – No.2, May 2017 – www.caeaccess.org

centralized The author in [16] displays an extensive overview of existing

network
structure
key management scheme and order them in view of the
distributed encryption enter instrument utilized as a part of the scheme.
Symmetric key management schemes, Asymmetric key
asymmetric management schemes, and Hybrid schemes.

encryption symmetric 2.1 Based on Asymmetric Encryption.

Asymmetric Key Cryptography was presented first by
hybrid
W.Diffie and M. Hellman displays the principle thought of a
public key cryptosystem. Because of constraints of WSNs, not
location dependant
all security arrangements intended for customary PC systems
pre-distribution
can be actualized straightforwardly in WSN. For quite a
location indepandent
protocols in WSNs
key management

while, it was trusted that public key cryptography was most

taxonomy of

static
rekeying
dynamic
homogenus
network model
hetrogenus
probabilistic
probability of key
sharing
determinstic
attacker model 1
attacker model 2
attacker model
attacker model 3
attacker model 4
Figure 1: Classifications for KMSs
The LEAP protocol is an agent of scheme secure under this
class of assailant, but it is an individual from the Master key
based pre-dispersion type also. Aggressor Model 4: in this
model both catching and active assaults are available ideal
from the node deployment. Base station interest, i.e., the
SPINS protocol, and pairwise key pre-dispersion schemes are
considered consummately secure and fit to this type of model.
Depending upon key pre-distribution – It is characterized into
area free key Pre-distribution and area subordinate key pre-
distribution.
Depending upon Deployment – Key management Schemes
can be additionally characterized into Static and element
conspire in view of whether rekeying is performed after
sending.
In the Static KMS conspire once the sensor node are sent in
the field, they won't change regulatory keys are produced
before sending. In the active KMS may change its managerial
keys occasionally or on request. The significant preferred
standpoint of element KMS is upgraded organize survivability
and versatility. Depending upon the network mode –, It is
ordered into homogeneous or heterogeneous scheme as to the
part of system nodes in the key administration process.
Homogeneous plans generally a level system model and all
the sensor nodes are having same capacities, while in
heterogeneous schemes are proposed for both level and
hierarchical systems.
Finally, and the core of the paper which is the classification of
key management baes on Encryption mechanism
certainly not reasonable for WSNs since that it was required
high preparing power, however through investigations of
encryption calculations in view of bends was confirmed the
plausibility of that strategy in WSN.[21]
2.1.1 Asymmetric Encryption Techniques.
The cryptographic algorithm RSA Is named after its creators
Rivest, Shamir and Adleman [22] [23]. This technique utilizes
two vast prime numbers P and Q .The quality of this
algorithm depends on the complexity of finding these
extensive prime numbers which is fundamental to locate the
secret key while individuals in public key can be disseminated
openly. Since utilizing vast prime numbers and slicing as
process, it requests high operational necessities as far as
assets. It will take toll on processing power memory, and the
life span of the operation requests control power too. Through
this strategy it is conceivable to encrypt information and to
make computerized signature. It was successful to the point
that today is the RSA public key algorithm utilized most on
the world.
Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) algorithm - In eighteenth
[24] proposed a way for cryptography taking in minde elliptic
curve ECC. As indicated by authors of the ECC 4, an elliptic
curve is an idea of curve characterized by the accompanying
condition:
The effectiveness of this calculation depends on finding a
discrete logarithm of an irregular element that is a part of an
elliptic curve. The effectiveness of ECC cryptographic
calculation with key sizes of around 160 bits is like got
utilizing the RSA calculation with 1024 piece key [25].
Algorithm which has a few aspects depend on elliptic curves,
counting key management, encryption and digital signature.
The unadulterated content m is first spoken to as a point M,
and afterward encrypted by the addition to kQ, where k is a
whole number picked haphazardly, and Q is the public key.
An aggressor who needs to peruse of M need to ascertain kQ.
This model have been widely considered since as indicated by
Amin [26] as of late the ECC has pulled in consideration as a
security answer for WSN, due to the fact that the utilization of
little keys and below computational overhead.
Hybrid Elliptic Curve Cryptography (HECC) algorithm - The
HECC was made in 1988 by Koblitz [27] as a generality of
elliptic curves. As per Batina [28] the interesting contrast
amongst ECC and HECC is at normal level that for this
situation comprises of various arrangements of operations.
The HECC utilizes more unpredictable operations, although
works with littler operands. As per Chatterjee [25] the chain
of importance of operations in the HECC and ECC algorithm
can be separated into three levels. The primary level is the

10
 Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE) – ISSN : 2394-4714
Foundation of Computer Science FCS, New York, USA
Volume 7 – No.2, May 2017 – www.caeaccess.org
scalar duplication on the second level are point operations
bunch/splitter and the third level, definite field operations.
Multivariate Quadratic Almost Group (MQQ) - The
cryptographic algorithm exhibited above have their security in
view of computationally unmanageable scientific issues:
computational effectiveness of figuring the discrete logarithm
and number factorization [30]. In 2008, it was presented
another plan called multivariate quadratic public key near
roup (MQQ) [31]. This algorithm depends on multivariate
polynomial changes of almost quadratic and grouped having
the accompanying properties [30, 31]. Highly parallelizable
not at all like different calculations that are basically
successive, the encryption acceleration is practically identical
to different cryptosystems public key in view of multivariate
quadratic, the decryption algorithm is same as of a symmetric
block chipper, and post-Quantum Algorithm, As indicated by
El-Hadely and Maia [32, 31] investigations demonstrated that
the equipment MQQ can be as quick as a run of the mill
symmetric block cipher, being a few requests of extent
quicker than algorithm, for example, RSA, DH and ECC.
2.1.2 Asymmetric Key management schemes.
2.1.2.1 RSA-based asymmetric encryption scheme.
RSA-based asymmetric encryption scheme Watro et al. [17]
depicted the TinyPK: securing sensor systems with public key
innovation. They plan and execute public key-based protocol
that permit verification and the agreement of key between
esource compelled sensors. The TinyPK support a technique
for giving validation and key trade between an outer gathering
and a sensor network. TinyPK depends on the outstanding
RSA cryptosystem, utilizing e ¼3 as public proponent. To
achive verification, the outside gathering presents its marked
public key and some content marked with its private key.
Protocol operation begins when the outsider gives a challenge
to the sensor network. This test comprises of two sections:
The first is its own particular public key, marked by the CA
(certificated authority) private key; the second is an{m
aggregate object comprising of a nonce (which called a
timestamp) and a message checksum, marked with the
outsider's own particular private key. They additionally
actualized Diffie–Hellman key exchange on the MICA2
platform. The objective of Diffie–Hellman is to give a
common secret between two gatherings that can then be
utilized to make a cryptographic key. They utilize Diffie–
Hellman to produce a secret reasonable for use in making
another or substitution TinySec key. Such a key would permit
two disjoint sensor network to convey and permit the
arrangement of substitution bits into a current sensor field
without looking up and preload the TinySec enter being used
by the field.
2.1.2.2 ECC-based asymmetric encryption system.
ECC-based asymmetric encryption system Malan et al. [19]
proposes a public key framework for key dissemination in
TinyOS in view of elliptic curve cryptography. Elliptic curve
cryptography is executed over F2p for sensor frameworks in
light of the 8-bit, 7.3828-MHz MICA2 bit. They contend that
public key framework is practical for TinySec keys
dissemination, even on the MICA2. They exhibit that public
keys can be created inside 34 s, and that shared secret key can
be circulated among nodes in a sensor network inside the
same, utilizing a little more than 34KB of ROM and 1KB of
SRAM. Malan et al. give a working execution of Diffie-
Hellman in view of the elliptic curve discrete logarithm issue.
Another sort of ECC-based public key scheme for
n_authentication were proposed by Ren et al. [20]. In the
event that client can effectively confirm with any subset of
sensors out of an arrangement of n sensors, the n-verification
succeed. Ren et al. proposed a few n-confirmation schemes in
light of ECC and other cryptographic systems including the
Bloom channel, the fractional message recuperation signature
scheme and Merkle hash tree. The two essential plans are the
certified based authentication (CAS) and the immediate
storage based validation.
2.1.2.3 ID-based key agreement schemes.
This method relay on the sort algorithm of elliptic curve
cryptography. Boneh and Franklin [29] proposed a completely
sensible character based scheme of encryption. The inspiration
of identify based encryption is to streamline the authentication
based public key encryption framework. In the declaration
based public key encryption framework, a client needs to
confirm another client's authentication before utilizing his/her
public key. Subsequently, every client requires an extensive
storage and registering time to store and check each other's
public keys and the relating authentication. The fundamental
thought of the scheme is that a self-assertive string can act as a
public key. As a result, a client can utilize any ID, for
example, email, to figure a public key, instead of extricating
from the authentication issued by a certification Authority
(CA). An ID based encryption plan is determined by four
Randomized calculations: Setup, Extract, Encrypt, and
Decrypt.ID-based key agreement scheme,Yang et al. [50]
proposed ID-based key assention conspire. This scheme
comprises of the accompanying strides. Firstly, Initialization
stage: In this stage, all public parameters and private keys
have been calculated, and contribute the m to sensors. Then,
Encrypting message stage: up on the finishing of the previous
stage, a sensor system is conveyed. A node has its private key
and the public parameters. Finally, Decrypting message: Plain
text can be recuperated by running the Decrypt work with
private key of the node. In a sensor organize without base
station, just the node knows its private key. ID-based key
management scheme, is another scheme has been proposed
depends on the polynomials [51]. It will be shown as takes
after. First, System setup: The order node or the base station
needs to set up the framework to such an extent that all
essential parameter output be utilized amid the WSN
application's life time. Second, Algorithm development: This
method comprises of the accompanying three stages:
Encryption Setup, Encryption and Decryption. Encryption
setup. So as to speak with group pioneers/cluster headers
(gateway), the charge node needs to setup the accompanying
parameters, Yang et al., show the reproduction result. It
demonstrates that, for a RSA scheme, the calculation time
increments with the length of keys. At a similar security level,
an IBE scheme with 160Cbit key takes 6.8s, while a RSA
conspire needs 29s. Moreover, the administration of keys in
RSA is more unpredictable than that in IBE.
2.2 Based on Symmetric Encryption.
2.2.1 Symmetric Encryption Techniques.
2.2.1.1 Block Ciphers in WSN
A lightweight block cipher figure, with little block size and
key size, is proper for WSNs, as it is energy effective and
gives adequate security in Wireless Sensor Networks. We pick
four block cipher as competitors and consider the diverse
energy execution when connected in Wireless Sensor
Networks. The chosen one block cipher are AES [33],
Skipjack [34], Puffin [35] and BSPN1 [36].
11
 Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE) – ISSN : 2394-4714
Foundation of Computer Science FCS, New York, USA
Volume 7 – No.2, May 2017 – www.caeaccess.org
Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), [33] is the most
prominently sent symmetric key cipher. Despite the fact that,
as we might see, the energy cost per byte of AES is high, it is
by and large viewed as a protected decision when choosing
ciphers for security methods.
Skipjack, [34] is promised to replace the Data Encryption
Standards (DES). It is work with Wireless Sensor Networks in
the TinySec method [37] because of its good use of energy. In
any case, some examination has demonstrated that Skipjack
has security shortcoming under specific cryptanalyses [38]
[39].
Puffin, [35] currently presented smaller block cipher intended
for hardware executions. Puffin can oppose differential and
straight cryptanalysis and it is likewise impervious to related-
key assaults and frail keys, which are two principle
weaknesses of the key schedule.
Byte-wise SPN (BSPN), is a conservative block cipher we
propose to use in WSNs [36], which gives direct security to
the energy constrained condition. It has no obvious storage
and is impervious to both the differential and direct
cryptanalysis assaults [36].
2.2.1.2 Stream Ciphers in WSNs
The following stream cipher will be compared: RC4,
Sosemanuk and Salsa.
RC4- which is a familiar stream cipher developing a little size
(8 bit) key stream block which -exclusive or - with 8 bits of
plaintext.
Sosemanuk and Salsa- which are from the eSTREAM extend,
which are viewed as secure and intended for programming
purposes. Despite the fact that there are likewise two other
stream cipher, Rabbit and HC-128.
By comparing these techniques it showed that RC4 utilizes the
least number of cycles to produce the key stream bytes for
encryption.
2.2.2 Symmetric Key management schemes.
Symmetric key management scheme which is classified into
three classifications, these are:
2.2.2.1 Base Station Participation Scheme.
In this technique a base station which is a trusted and secured
is utilized as a judge to give an interface keys to sensor node.
Every sensor node imparts a one of a unique key to a base
station, which goes about as a Key distribution center (KDC).
Accordingly, the plan is likewise called centralized key
distribution center (KDC) approach. The sensor nodes validate
themselves to the base station [75]. The scheme requires less
memory and consummately controlled node replication,
likewise it is versatile to node catch and conceivable to
abolish key pairs. But it is not versatile and the base station
turns into the objective of assaults.
The following are some of the current techniques.
Security Protocols for Sensor Networks (SPINS) [40]: SPINS
is a security building hinder that is advanced for resource
compelled conditions and remote communication. It depends
on trusted base server. Twists depends on two secure building
squares: SNEP (Secure Network Encryption Protocol) and
μTESLA (the "smaller scale" adaptation of the Timed,
Efficient, Streaming, and Loss-tolerant Authentication
Protocol). SNEP gives the information privacy, two-party
information validation, and information freshness with low
overhead. While μTESLA gives validated communicate to
seriously resource compelled environment.
Logical Key Hierarchy for Wireless sensor network (LKHW)
[41]: it is a safe gathering communication scheme in light of
coordinated dispersion and Logical Key Hierarchy (LKH)
scheme, to secure the coordinated dissemination protocol. A
LKH is a key tree structure within this tree leaves represent
source nodes and roots represent sink node. Every leaf node
keep the same keys all the way along to the sink node. It has
Minimal storage, although the base station turns into the
objective of assaults.
2.2.2.2 Trusted Third Node Based Scheme
In trusted third node based scheme a companion sensor node
is utilized as a put stock in mediator for the creation of a
mutual key between nodes. The following are some of the
latest techniques.
PIKE [42]: A mechanism was proposed known as Peer
Intermediaries for Key Establishment (PIKE), a key
dissemination scheme depends on utilizing peer sensor nodes
as put stock in middle nodes. The scheme was intended to
address the absence of versatility of existing symmetric key
dispersion scheme. The scheme sets up keys between any two
node paying little respect to network topology or density of
nodes. The scheme is admitting fewer communication
overhead when contrasted with KDC approaches. The scheme
is a great deal stronger than the current one. Key creation is
not probabilistic. The scheme has two varieties, one is
essential PIKE and at least three dimensional PIKE.
Nonetheless, Intermediary node might be the objective of
assault
2.2.2.3 Pre-Distribution Schemes
The key pre-distribution conspire includes three stages: key
pre-distribution stage, shared-key disclosure stage and path
key establishment stage.
In light of the key appropriation, key disclosure and key
establishment in the pre-distribution scheme, we group these
scheme into nine classes, these are:
Master Key Based Pre-Distribution Scheme:
A solitary key is preloaded into all the sensor nodes of the
system. After that, each node in the system can utilize this key
to encrypt and decrypt messages. This scheme incorporates
negligible capacity prerequisites and evasion of complex
protocol. Since single key is kept in every sensor node; no
requirement for a sensor node to perform key disclosure or
exchange of the key. Although, bargain of a solitary node
causes the tradeoff of the whole system through the singled
shared key. Broadcast Session Key negotiation protocol
(BROSK) [43], the scheme depends on single master key that
is pre-conveyed to nodes. Lightweight Key Management
System [44], the approach requires the sensors to share a little
arrangement of secret keys. These keys are stacked in every
sensor before sending.
Pair-Wise Key Pre-Distribution Scheme:
In pair wise key conveyance schemes, pairwise keys are
stacked to the sensor nodes before arrangement. This enables
every node to speak with every one of the nodes in its
communication run. This offers node to node verification,
expanded strength against the node catch. In this manner
limits the possibility for node replication. The disadvantage is
the extra overhead required for every node to build up n-1
special key with the various nodes in the system and keep up
those keys in its memory. Random Pair-Wise Keys Scheme
[45], is a pair wise key pre-distribution conspire in which
particular match insightful keys are stacked to the sensor
nodes before organization.
Pure Probabilistic Key Pre-Distribution Schemes:
12
 Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE) – ISSN : 2394-4714
Foundation of Computer Science FCS, New York, USA
Volume 7 – No.2, May 2017 – www.caeaccess.org
This technique guarantees some likelihood that any two sensor
nodes can convey utilizing a pairwise key. It does not, in any
case, guarantee that two nodes dependably can register a
pairwise key to use for secure communication. Random Key
Pre-Distribution Scheme [46], it permits expansion and
cancellation of sensor nodes in the system after sending. It
addresses the bootstrapping issue. Thus, that the system
develops or supplanting falling flat and temperamental nodes.
The key-dispersion prepare comprises of three stages. Firstly,
key pre-dissemination. After that, shared-key disclosure.
Finally way key creation stage Q-Composite Random Key
Pre-distribution Scheme [45], In q-composite random key pre-
appropriation conspire q-common keys from the key pool
rather than one basic key in the essential scheme are utilized
in each of the sensor node. This will build the key cover
required for key-setup, in this way expanding the strength of
the system against node catch. Subsequently, the scheme
fortified the security under little scale assault. Be that as it
may, defenselessness increments when the scheme needs to
face extensive scale physical assault. Multipath Key
Reinforcement Scheme [45], it facilitates the updates of key
over numerous autonomous ways. They expected that after the
setup of key different secure ways are framed in view of q
basic keys shared by the nodes. It expands the security of key
setup to such an extent that an assailant needs to trade off
numerous more nodes to accomplish a high likelihood of
bargaining any given communication. Closest Pairwise Keys
Pre-Distribution Scheme [47, 48], the essential thought of this
scheme is to pre-appropriate pairwise keys between sets of
sensors. So that two sensors have a pre-disseminated pairwise
key in the event that they have a high likelihood to show up in
each other's RF range. Random Key Pre-Distribution Scheme
Using Node Deployment Knowledge [49], it was presented
which is utilizing node arrangement information. All the
current pre-appropriation key schemes consider uniform
dissemination. They considered non-uniform probability
density functions (pdfs). They have demonstrated that learning
would enhance arbitrary key pre-dissemination scheme [46].
Key Pre-Distribution Using Post-deployment Knowledge [47],
it was presented which is utilizing an idea of post deployment
learning of sensor nodes to enhance the pairwise enter pre-
circulation in static sensor systems.
Polynomial-Based Key Pre-Distribution Schemes:
It relays on the scheme of pairwise keys pre-dispersion.
Subsequently these scheme conquer a portion of the
probabilistic pre-circulation schemes' impediments. These are,
First, any two sensors can build up a pairwise key when there
are no negotiate sensors; second, Even with a few nodes
bargained, the others in the system can at present set up
pairwise keys; third, A node can locate the normal keys to
decide if it can set up a pairwise key and in this manner help
decrease communication overhead. Polynomial Based
Pairwise Key Pre-Distribution [52], this scheme was
presented which is utilizing the idea of polynomials. It utilizes
the idea of the protocol [53]. This mechanism in [53] was
created for gathering key pre-conveyance. Polynomial Pool-
Based Pairwise Key Pre-Distribution [52], it is a generic
system for key pre-conveyance which is a mix of polynomial
based key pre-dissemination and key pool [46, 45]. In this
system a pool of haphazardly produced bivariate polynomials
is utilized to set up pairwise keys between sensors. Random
Subset Assignment Key Pre-Distribution Scheme [54, 52], A
proficient instantiation of the general structure polynomial
pool-based pairwise key pre-dispersion was created. An
arbitrary procedure is utilized for subset task amid the setup
stage. Network Based Key Pre-Distribution [52], it depends
on the parts of the general system. Along these lines, it
ensures that any two sensors can build up a pairwise key when
there is no negotiate sensor. Position Based Pair-Wise Keys
Scheme: it utilizing Bivariate Polynomials [48], which
depends on polynomial-based key pre-dissemination strategy
and nearest pairwise keys scheme.
Nearest Polynomials Scheme [47]: it is a blend of the normal
position of sensor nodes with the irregular subset task scheme
in [52] to conquer certain restrictions. Hypercube-Based Key
Pre-Distribution Scheme [54], it is a speculation of network
based key pre-conveyance scheme [52]. Random
Perturbation-Based (RPB) Scheme [55], it depends on
polynomials to create pairwise keys. The RPB does not give
every node the first share but rather the perturbed share, which
is the entirety of the first impart and an irritation polynomial
to the restricted contamination property.
Matrix-based key pre-distribution schemes:
All conceivable connection enters in a system of size n can be
act as an n × n key matrix. Little measure of data is put away
to every sensor node, so that each combine of nodes can
compute comparing field of the matrix, and utilizations it as
the connection key.
Grid-Group Deployment Scheme [57], it was presented which
is called as network gathering organization plot. Nodes are
consistently sent in an extensive zone rather than haphazardly
circulating keys from a huge key pool to every sensor. Secret
keys are deliberately conveyed to every sensor from an
organized key pool. Robust Group-Based Key Management
Scheme [56], it was presented which is known as gathering
based key administration conspire utilizing sensor
arrangement learning in light of Blom' mechanism [59]. It
accomplished a higher level of connectivity with the
assistance of deployment learning when contrasted with the
ideal scheme. Multiple Space Key Pre-distribution Scheme
[58], A pairwise key pre-circulation mechanism was presented
which depends on Blom's key pre-dissemination conspire [59]
and consolidates the irregular key pre-dispersion strategy [46]
with it; which offers enhanced system flexibility known as
Multiple-Space Key Pre-conveyance Scheme. Constrained
Random Perturbation based pairwise establishment (CARPY)
scheme [60]:
This scheme and its variation CARPY+ was presented for
WSN. In the CARPY conspire, there are two stages: the
disconnected stride is performed, before sending of sensor
nodes, and the on-line step-is performed for each combine of
sensor nodes. The second variety is (CARPY+)
Communication-Free CARPY Scheme. In the CARPY
conspire, two sensor nodes speak with each other just to
exchange the individual segment of G, which can be known
by the enemy.
Tree-based key pre-distribution scheme:
In this scheme, senor nodes are masterminded in a tree in
which every sensor node speaks with its parent node. So the
key creation has done between neighboring nodes along the
total tree. The plan is the fundamentally lessening of the
memory cost. ID-Based One Way Function Scheme [61], in
this scheme, a public one way hash capacity is utilized as a
part of request to diminish the quantity of keys kept in the
node. A remarkable ID is relegated to every sensor node and
13
 Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE) – ISSN : 2394-4714
Foundation of Computer Science FCS, New York, USA
Volume 7 – No.2, May 2017 – www.caeaccess.org
this ID is utilized to register secret keys. Deterministic
Multiple Space Blom's Scheme [59], it was presented to
enhance the strength of the different IOSs. With a specific end
goal to accomplish great strength they debilitated the
availability of the system chart.
Hierarchical Key Management Scheme:
A tree of keys is worked for the progressive system, where the
keys at a specific level are appropriated to the comparing class
of nodes. The keys at more elevated amounts can be utilized
to determine the keys at lower levels, but not the other way
around. localized Encryption and Authentication Protocol
(LEAP) [62]: underpins the creation of four sorts of keys for
every sensor node an individual key imparted to the base
station, a pairwise key imparted to another sensor node, a
cluster key imparted to various neighboring nodes, and a
group key that is shared by every one of the nodes in the
system. A Time-Based Deployment Model [63], it was
recommended that would restrict the effect of key bargain
inside the time interims. The ideal opportunity for sensor
nodes to set up pairwise keys each other, Test, may take
longer than the time interim for an enemy to compose a node.
Combinatorial Design-based key Pre-distribution Scheme [64,
65]: a determination key and a scheme which is hybrid pre-
appropriation was presented in light of Combinatorial Design
hypothesis that chooses what number of and which keys to
allocate to each key-chain before the sensor organize
formation. The principle downsides is the complexity of its
development. To conquer the downside, they proposed a
Hybrid Design which joins a deterministic basic with a
probabilistic expansion.
EBS-Based Key Pre-Distribution Schemes [66]:
It conspire abuses the exchange off between the quantity of
authoritative keys k and the quantity of rekeying messages m.
this approach turns out to be exceptionally versatile for
substantial systems and empowers awesome adaptability in
system administration by controlling the attitude of k and m.
Huge k builds the capacity necessities at the node, while
substantial m expands communication overhead for key
administration. Scalable, Hierarchical, Efficient, Location-
aware, and Light-weight (SHELL) Scheme [68], it bolsters
rekeying in this way upgrades organize security and
survivability against node catch. SHELL has the feature of
collision-free. Localized Combinatorial Keying (LOCK)
conspire [67] LOCK achieve confined rekeying to limit
overhead. It is an enhanced version for SHELL [68]. It utilizes
the key polynomials to enhance network strength to
conspiracy rather than position based key task as in SHELL.
2.3 Based on Hybrid Encryption.
2.3.1 Hybrid Encryption techniques.
Symmetric key calculation has a hindrance of key
appropriation [69] and asymmetric calculation require much
calculation so the energy of the sensor is squandered in it [69]
and it is not doable to use as power is squandered then sensor
will be of no utilization Thus the calculation which joins both
the calculation i.e. asymmetric and symmetric so the benefits
of both the calculation can be used in it. A protocol is called s
hybrid cryptosystem is utilizing numerous cipher of various
sorts together, each further bolstering its best good fortune.
One normal approach is to create an irregular secret key for a
symmetric cipher, and after that encode this key by means of
an asymmetric cipher utilizing the beneficiary's public key.
The content of message is then scrambled utilizing the
symmetric cipher and the secret key. Both the scrambled
secret key and the encoded message are then transmit to the
beneficiary. The beneficiary unscrambles the secret key in the
first place, utilizing his/her own particular private key, and
afterward utilizes that key to decode the message. This is
fundamentally the approach utilized as a part of PGP. A
portion of the hybrid algorithm like DHA+ECC [70] is
portrayed in detail.
2.3.1.1 SCUR.
Tahir et al. [71] presented an inconsequential Encryption
technique in view of the Rabbit stream cipher for giving
privacy in WSNs. It satisfies both prerequisites of security and
also energy effectiveness. The target of the SCUR is to limit
cost-impact of the accompanying while at the same time
keeping up required levels of security: (1) Communication
overhead, in the event of conveying the encrypted packet
.calculation overhead, in securing the system , to spare
sensor's life time .(3) used key space.
2.3.1.2 MASA
Alzaid et al. [71] presented a security framework known as
MASA (Mixture of Asymmetric and Symmetric Approaches)
to give end-to-end information security for WSN. It depends
on the idea of virtual geographic network wherein the whole
territory is separated into littler districts called cells. Every
sensor conveys two sorts of keys, asymmetric and symmetric.
MASA utilizes the private key to mark a hashed occasion
warning to give classification, genuineness, and information
respectability. The symmetric key is utilized to validate the
occasion notice inside its cell.
2.3.1.3 SecFleck
Hu et al., [74] depicted the sketch and execution of public key
stage. It depends on a ware Trusted Platform Module (TPM)
chip that broadens the ability of a regular node. SecFleck
picks XTEA symmetric key cryptography as a result of its
little RAM impression, which makes it a decent contender for
small sensor device that normally have under 10 KB RAM.
XTEA can be utilized as a part of a yield criticism mode to
encode or discredit had examined the execution of the
secFleck stage as far as calculation time, energy utilization,
and monetary cost.
2.3.2 Hybrid Key management schemes.
A few research group like Huang et al., [73], and Zhangand
Varadharajan, [11] presented the hybrid key establishment
scheme for WSNs. The inspiration is to misuse the distinction
among the base station, the cluster header and the sensor, and
locate the cryptographic burden on the base station or to the
sensors where their point of supply are less obliged. The
establishment scheme of hybrid key lessen the huge
computational cost on the sensors by setting them on the base
station side.
Huang et al. [73] show a hybrid verified key establishment
conspire, which depends on a mix of elliptic curve
cryptography (ECC) and symmetric-key operations. The
establishment protocol for hybrid key decreases the big cost
elliptic curve arbitrary point scalar increases at the sensor side
and replaces them with ease and proficient symmetric-key
based actions.
3. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE STUDY.
The criteria for assessing WSN key administration scheme
include: firstly, Computation multifaceted nature (registering
overhead or preparing many-sided quality), is the quantity of
unit capacity executed. Also, Communication complexity
(overhead), is the amount and volume of packet sent and got
14
 Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE) – ISSN : 2394-4714
Foundation of Computer Science FCS, New York, USA
Volume 7 – No.2, May 2017 – www.caeaccess.org
by a sensor node. After that Storage complexity (overhead), is
the measure of memory units required to keep security
credentials. And then, Connectivity implies the association
likelihood for two nodes have the same pre-distributed key or
building up a key way between them. Subsequently,
Scalability implies whether a scheme bolster sensor node
renouncement/expansion for substantial WSN. Finally,
Security quality (resilience), implies the likelihood that a
connection is bargained when a foe catches a node or the
quantity of sensors required for foe to compromise the entire
WSN. The productivity of security scheme: Is measured by
Computation multifaceted nature, correspondence intricacy
and capacity complexity, and the execution of the scheme is
measured by Scalability, versatility and availability. In light of
the past criteria, Symmetric-key based scheme are broadly
utilized as they are moderately less calculation complexity,
which are appropriate for the constrained resource attributes
of the WSN. Nevertheless, the deficiencies of the symmetric
key scheme are additionally self-evident. Diverse scheme may
have distinctive shortcoming, for example, security quality
(flexibility), and versatility and association likelihood. Then
again, public key scheme have many points of interest, for
example, communication overhead, storage, versatility. It can
give less complex arrangement substantially more grounded
security quality. Public key resolution were thought too
computationally costly for remote sensor organize. The usage
and reproduction results demonstrates that the ECC-based and
scheme ID-based key understanding scheme have less
calculation complexity. Hybrid scheme are reasonable for the
bigger various leveled WSN. Hybrid scheme may have points
of interest of both asymmetric key and symmetric scheme for
bigger sensor network. The progressing course is the means
by which to secure the WSN by joining the cryptographic
methods to give the best answer for the distinctive
environment.
4. CONCLUSION
Wireless Sensor Network's Key management is a basic issue
that has been tended to through many proposed methods
displayed in different papers. A review of these procedures is
given in this paper, each of which offers Cons points and pros.
A harmony between the necessities and resources of a WSN
figures out which KMS ought to be utilized. A Wireless
sensor network utilized as a part of a war fields needs more
security than one utilized as a part of spots like strip malls;
likewise, the previous can be made all the more exorbitant
although the later should be as shoddy as could be expected
under the circumstances. Choices with respect to the key
management scheme to be utilized must be founded on these
necessities for productivity. The investigation of key
management in WSN still has bottomless research openings
later on. As electrical frameworks wind up plainly littler, all
the more intense, and utilize less vitality, the security
restrictions will turn out to be more unpredictable. With
respect to now, key administration frameworks are an
exchange off of execution and security to low overhead in
memory use and message transmissions. Key administration
frameworks sole reason for existing is to supply secure
communication in WSN without delivering much overhead.
More methods ought to be produced to make proficient
utilization of sensor nodes' restricted resources. More
noteworthy accentuation ought to be given to the security in
KMS, especially as a larger part of sensor node sending is in
threatening situations where giving solid security elements is
an unquestionable requirement. Despite the fact that getting
much consideration as of late, there are numerous issues to be
tended to in WSNs, for example, finding the traded off nodes
in a system, making great utilization of sending information,
making nodes carefully designed without much overhead,
diminishing the bootstrapping time required for the system,
and so forth. Relish research ought to particularly look for
procedures for traded off node disclosure and effective
techniques to renounce bargained nodes. Various lives can be
spared in wars with the information gathered by sensors,
however Wireless sensor networks sooner rather than later
will offer many shocks for out of this world to be utilized as a
part of day by day family unit matters like locking entryways
and turning off gadgets, or controlling activity in high-volume
regions. Sensors introduced in huge shopping centers and
malls can control individuals to their required items
effortlessly while those in clinics can screen persistent
condition and those in backwoods can give prompt learning
about heartbreaking risks like out of control fire. These points
of interest are just a little division of what Wireless sensor
networks could conceivably offer when sent all the more
regularly. Future reviews can end up being valuable in a more
extensive assortment of situations.
5. REFERENCES
[1] Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. 2010. The internet of
things: A survey. Computer networks, 54(15), 2787-
2805.
[2] Walters, J. P., Liang, Z., Shi, W., & Chaudhary, V. 2007.
Wireless sensor network security: A survey. Security in
distributed, grid, mobile, and pervasive computing, 1,
367.
[3] Deng, J., Han, R., & Mishra, S. 2003. Enhancing base
station security in wireless sensor networks. Technical
Report CU-CS-951-03, Department of Computer
Science, University of Colorado.
[4] JURNEČKA, F. (2013). Key management schemes in
wireless sensor network simulations (Doctoral
dissertation, Masarykova univerzita, Fakulta
informatiky).
[5] Roman, R., Lopez, J., Alcaraz, C., & Chen, H. H. (2011,
March). SenseKey--Simplifying the Selection of Key
Management Schemes for Sensor Networks. In
Advanced Information Networking and Applications
(WAINA), 2011 IEEE Workshops of International
Conference on (pp. 789-794). IEEE.
[6] Oliveira, L. B., Aranha, D. F., Gouvêa, C. P., Scott, M.,
Câmara, D. F., López, J., & Dahab, R. (2011). TinyPBC:
Pairings for authenticated identity-based non-interactive
key distribution in sensor networks. Computer
Communications, 34(3), 485-493.
[7] Szczechowiak, P., Oliveira, L. B., Scott, M., Collier, M.,
& Dahab, R. (2008). NanoECC: Testing the limits of
elliptic curve cryptography in sensor networks. In
Wireless sensor networks (pp. 305-320). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
[8] Shnayder, V., Hempstead, M., Chen, B. R., Allen, G. W.,
& Welsh, M. (2004, November). Simulating the power
consumption of large-scale sensor network applications.
In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on
Embedded networked sensor systems (pp. 188-200).
ACM.
15
 Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE) – ISSN : 2394-4714
Foundation of Computer Science FCS, New York, USA
Volume 7 – No.2, May 2017 – www.caeaccess.org
[9] Perla, E., Catháin, A. Ó., Carbajo, R. S., Huggard, M., &
Mc Goldrick, C. (2008, October). PowerTOSSIM z:
realistic energy modelling for wireless sensor network
environments. In Proceedings of the 3nd ACM workshop
on Performance monitoring and measurement of
heterogeneous wireless and wired networks (pp. 35-42).
ACM.
[10] Pottie, G. J., & Kaiser, W. J. (2000). Wireless integrated
network sensors. Communications of the ACM, 43(5),
51-58.
[11] Zhang J, Varadharajan V. (2008).Group-based Wireless
Sensor Network Security Scheme. In: The fourth
international conference on wireless and mobile
communica- tions (ICWMC).
[12] Anastasi, G., Conti, M., Di Francesco, M., & Passarella,
A. (2009). Energy conservation in wireless sensor
networks: A survey. Ad hoc networks, 7(3), 537-568.
[13] Wang, Y., Attebury, G., & Ramamurthy, B. (2006). A
survey of security issues in wireless sensor networks.
[14] Lee, H., Kim, Y. H., Lee, D. H., & Lim, J. (2007).
Classification of key management schemes for wireless
sensor networks. In Advances in Web and Network
Technologies, and Information Management (pp. 664-
673). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[15] Simplício, M. A., Barreto, P. S., Margi, C. B., &
Carvalho, T. C. (2010). A survey on key management
mechanisms for distributed wireless sensor networks.
Computer networks, 54(15), 2591-2612.
[16] Zhang, J., & Varadharajan, V. (2010). Wireless sensor
network key management survey and taxonomy. Journal
of Network and Computer Applications, 33(2), 63-75.
[17] Watro, R., Kong, D., Cuti, S. F., Gardiner, C., Lynn, C.,
& Kruus, P. (2004, October). TinyPK: securing sensor
networks with public key technology. In Proceedings of
the 2nd ACM workshop on Security of ad hoc and sensor
networks (pp. 59-64). ACM.
[18] Di Pietro, R., Mancini, L. V., Law, Y. W., Etalle, S., &
Havinga, P. (2003, October). LKHW: A directed
diffusion-based secure multicast scheme for wireless
sensor networks. In Parallel Processing Workshops,
2003. Proceedings. 2003 International Conference on
(pp. 397-406). IEEE.
[19] Malan, D. J., Welsh, M., & Smith, M. D. (2004,
October). A public-key infrastructure for key distribution
in TinyOS based on elliptic curve cryptography. In
Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks,
2004. IEEE SECON 2004. 2004 First Annual IEEE
Communications Society Conference on (pp. 71-80).
IEEE.
[20] Ren, K., Yu, S., Lou, W., & Zhang, Y. (2009). Multi-user
broadcast authentication in wireless sensor networks.
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 58(8),
4554-4564.
[21] SenthilKumar, U. S. M. N., & Senthilkumaran, U.
(2016). Review of asymmetric key cryptography in
wireless sensor networks. International Journal of
Engineering and Technology, 8(2), 859-862.
[22] Rivest, R. L., Shamir, A., & Adleman, L. (1978). A
method for obtaining digital signatures and public-key
cryptosystems. Communications of the ACM, 21(2),
120-126.
[23] Shamir, A. (1984, August). Identity-based cryptosystems
and signature schemes. In Workshop on the Theory and
Application of Cryptographic Techniques (pp. 47-53).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[24] Koblitz, N. (1987). Elliptic curve cryptosystems.
Mathematics of computation, 48(177), 203-209.
[25] Chatterjee, K., De, A., & Gupta, D. (2011). Software
Implementation of Curve based Cryptography for
Constrained Devices. International Journal of Computer
Applications, 24(5), 18-23.
[26] Amin, F., Jahangir, A. H., & Rasifard, H. (2008).
Analysis of public-key cryptography for wireless sensor
networks security. World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology, 41, 529-534.
[27] Koblitz, N. (1990, February). A family of Jacobians
suitable for discrete log cryptosystems. In Proceedings on
Advances in cryptology (pp. 94-99). Springer-Verlag
New York, Inc..
[28] Batina, L., Mentens, N., Preneel, B., & Verbauwhede, I.
(2006, May). Flexible hardware architectures for curve-
based cryptography. In Circuits and Systems, 2006.
ISCAS 2006. Proceedings. 2006 IEEE International
Symposium on (pp. 4-pp). IEEE.
[29] Boneh, D., & Franklin, M. (2001, August). Identity-
based encryption from the Weil pairing. In Annual
International Cryptology Conference (pp. 213-229).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[30] Gligoroski, D., Markovski, S., & Knapskog, S. J. (2008).
A public key block cipher based on multivariate
quadratic quasigroups. arXiv preprint arXiv:0808.0247.
[31] Maia, R. J. M. (2010). Analysis of the viability of the
implementation of the algorithms post-Quantico besides
in quadratics multivariate almost-groups in platforms of
boundary processes (doctorate, University of São Paulo).
[32] El-Hadedy, M., Gligoroski, D., & Knapskog, S. J. (2008,
December). High performance implementation of a
public key block cipher-mqq, for fpga platforms. In
Reconfigurable Computing and FPGAs, 2008.
ReConFig'08. International Conference on (pp. 427-432).
IEEE.
[33] Pub, N. F. 197: Advanced Encryption Standard (AES),
Federal Information Processing Standards Publication
197, US Department of Commerce/NIST, November 26,
2001. Available from the NIST website.
[34] SkipJack and KEA Algorithm Specifications. National
Institute of Standards and Technology, version 2, may
1998.
[35] Cheng, H., Heys, H. M., & Wang, C. (2008, September).
Puffin: A novel compact block cipher targeted to
embedded digital systems. In Digital System Design
Architectures, Methods and Tools, 2008. DSD'08. 11th
EUROMICRO Conference on (pp. 383-390). IEEE.
16
 Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE) – ISSN : 2394-4714
Foundation of Computer Science FCS, New York, USA
Volume 7 – No.2, May 2017 – www.caeaccess.org
[36] Heys, H. M., & Tavares, S. E. (1996). Substitution-
permutation networks resistant to differential and linear
cryptanalysis. Journal of cryptology, 9(1), 1-19.
[37] Karlof, C., Sastry, N., & Wagner, D. (2004, November).
TinySec: a link layer security architecture for wireless
sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2nd international
conference on Embedded networked sensor systems (pp.
162-175). ACM.
[38] Granboulan, L. (2001, April). Flaws in differential
cryptanalysis of Skipjack. In International Workshop on
Fast Software Encryption (pp. 328-335). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
[39] Knudsen, L., Robshaw, M., & Wagner, D. (1999).
Truncated differentials and Skipjack. In Advances in
Cryptology—CRYPTO’99 (pp. 790-790). Springer
Berlin/Heidelberg.
[40] Perrig, A., Szewczyk, R., Tygar, J. D., Wen, V., &
Culler, D. E. (2002). SPINS: Security protocols for
sensor networks. Wireless networks, 8(5), 521-534.
[41] Di Pietro, R., Mancini, L. V., Law, Y. W., Etalle, S., &
Havinga, P. (2003, October). LKHW: A directed
diffusion-based secure multicast scheme for wireless
sensor networks. In Parallel Processing Workshops,
2003. Proceedings. 2003 International Conference on
(pp. 397-406). IEEE.
[42] Chan, H., & Perrig, A. (2005, March). PIKE: Peer
intermediaries for key establishment in sensor networks.
In INFOCOM 2005. 24th Annual Joint Conference of the
IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.
Proceedings IEEE (Vol. 1, pp. 524-535). IEEE.
[43] Lai, B., Kim, S., & Verbauwhede, I. (2002, December).
Scalable session key construction protocol for wireless
sensor networks. In IEEE Workshop on Large Scale
RealTime and Embedded Systems (LARTES) (p. 7).
[44] Dutertre, B., Cheung, S., & Levy, J. (2004). Lightweight
key management in wireless sensor networks by
leveraging initial trust. Technical Report SRI-SDL-04-
02, SRI International.
[45] Chan, H., Perrig, A., & Song, D. (2003, May). Random
key predistribution schemes for sensor networks. In
Security and Privacy, 2003. Proceedings. 2003
Symposium on (pp. 197-213). IEEE.
[46] Chan, H., Perrig, A., & Song, D. (2003, May). Random
key predistribution schemes for sensor networks. In
Security and Privacy, 2003. Proceedings. 2003
Symposium on (pp. 197-213). IEEE.
[47] Liu, D., & Ning, P. (2005). Improving key
predistribution with deployment knowledge in static
sensor networks. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks
(TOSN), 1(2), 204-239.
[48] Liu, D., & Ning, P. (2003, October). Location-based
pairwise key establishments for static sensor networks. In
Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on Security of ad
hoc and sensor networks (pp. 72-82). ACM.
[49] Du, W., Deng, J., Han, Y. S., Chen, S., & Varshney, P.
K. (2004, March). A key management scheme for
wireless sensor networks using deployment knowledge.
In INFOCOM 2004. Twenty-third AnnualJoint
conference of the IEEE computer and communications
societies (Vol. 1). IEEE.
[50] Geng, Y. A. N. G., Rong, C. M., Veigner, C., Wang, J.
T., & Cheng, H. B. (2006). Identity-based key agreement
and encryption for wireless sensor networks. The Journal
of China Universities of Posts and Telecommunications,
13(4), 54-60.
[51] Zhang J,VaradharajanV. (2008, July).Group-based
Wireless Sensor Network Security Scheme. In: The
fourth international conference on wireless and mobile
communications (ICWMC2008).
[52] Liu, D., & Ning, P. (2003, October). Location-based
pairwise key establishments for static sensor networks. In
Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on Security of ad
hoc and sensor networks (pp. 72-82). ACM.
[53] Blundo, C., De Santis, A., Herzberg, A., Kutten, S.,
Vaccaro, U., & Yung, M. (1992, August). Perfectly-
secure key distribution for dynamic conferences. In
Annual International Cryptology Conference (pp. 471-
486). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[54] Liu, D., Ning, P., & Li, R. (2005). Establishing pairwise
keys in distributed sensor networks. ACM Transactions
on Information and System Security (TISSEC), 8(1), 41-
77.
[55] Zhang, W., Tran, M., Zhu, S., & Cao, G. (2007,
September). A random perturbation-based scheme for
pairwise key establishment in sensor networks. In
Proceedings of the 8th ACM international symposium on
Mobile ad hoc networking and computing (pp. 90-99).
ACM.
[56] Yu, Z., & Guan, Y. (2005, March). A robust group-based
key management scheme for wireless sensor networks. In
Wireless Communications and Networking Conference,
2005 IEEE (Vol. 4, pp. 1915-1920). IEEE.
[57] Huang, D., Mehta, M., Medhi, D., & Harn, L. (2004,
October). Location-aware key management scheme for
wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2nd
ACM workshop on Security of ad hoc and sensor
networks (pp. 29-42). ACM.
[58] Du, W., Deng, J., Han, Y. S., Varshney, P. K., Katz, J., &
Khalili, A. (2005). A pairwise key pre-distribution
scheme for wireless sensor networks. ACM Transactions
on Information and System Security (TISSEC), 8(2),
228-258.
[59] Blom, R. (1984).Theory and Application of
Cryptographic Techniques. Proceedings of the Euro crypt
84 Workshop on Advances in Cryptology, Springer,
Berlin, pp. 335–8.
[60] Yu, C. M., Lu, C. S., & Kuo, S. Y. (2009, June). A
simple non-interactive pairwise key establishment
scheme in sensor networks. In Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc
Communications and Networks, 2009. SECON'09. 6th
Annual IEEE Communications Society Conference on
(pp. 1-9). IEEE.
[61] Lee, J., & Stinson, D. R. (2004, August). Deterministic
key predistribution schemes for distributed sensor
networks. In International Workshop on Selected Areas
in Cryptography (pp. 294-307). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
17
 Communications on Applied Electronics (CAE) – ISSN : 2394-4714
Foundation of Computer Science FCS, New York, USA
Volume 7 – No.2, May 2017 – www.caeaccess.org
[62] Zhu, S., Setia, S., & Jajodia, S. (2006). LEAP+: Efficient
security mechanisms for large-scale distributed sensor
networks. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks
(TOSN), 2(4), 500-528.
[63] Jang, J., Kwon, T., & Song, J. (2007, May). A time-based
key management protocol for wireless sensor networks.
In International Conference on Information Security
Practice and Experience (pp. 314-328). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
[64] Çamtepe, S. A., & Yener, B. (2007). Combinatorial
design of key distribution mechanisms for wireless
sensor networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on
networking, 15(2), 346-358.
[65] Camtepe, S. A., & Yener, B. (2004, September).
Combinatorial design of key distribution mechanisms for
wireless sensor networks. In European Symposium on
Research in Computer Security (pp. 293-308). Springer
Berlin Heidelberg.
[66] Eltoweissy, M., Heydari, M. H., Morales, L., &
Sudborough, I. H. (2004). Combinatorial optimization of
group key management. Journal of Network and Systems
Management, 12(1), 33-50.
[67] Eltoweissy, M., Moharrum, M., & Mukkamala, R.
(2006). Dynamic key management in sensor networks.
IEEE Communications magazine, 44(4), 122-130.
[68] Younis, M. F., Ghumman, K., & Eltoweissy, M. (2006).
Location-aware combinatorial key management scheme
for clustered sensor networks. IEEE transactions on
parallel and distributed systems, 17(8), 865-882.
View publication stats
[69] Wang, Y., Attebury, G., & Ramamurthy, B. (2006). A
survey of security issues in wireless sensor networks.
[70] Beg, M. R., & Ahmad, S. (2012). Energy Efficient PKI
Secure Key management Technique in Wireless Sensor
Network Using DHA & ECC. International Journal of
Ad Hoc, Sensor & Ubiquitous Computing, 3(1), 21.
[71] Alzaid, H., & Alfaraj, M. (2008, November). MASA:
End-to-End Data Security in Sensor Networks Using a
Mix of Asymmetric and Symmetric Approaches. In New
Technologies, Mobility and Security, 2008. NTMS'08.
(pp. 1-5). IEEE.
[72] Zhang, J., & Varadharajan, V. (2010). Wireless sensor
network key management survey and taxonomy. Journal
of Network and Computer Applications, 33(2), 63-75.
[73] Huang, Qiang, et al. "Fast authenticated key
establishment protocols for self-organizing sensor
networks." Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international
conference on Wireless sensor networks and
applications. ACM, 2003.
[74] Wen, H., Nirupama B., Chun T. C., Sanjay J., Andrew
T., Van N. T. (2009).Design and evaluation of a hybrid
sensor network for cane toad monitoring. ACM
Transactions on Sensor Networks (TOSN).
[75] Bala, S., Sharma, G., & Verma, A. K. (2013).
Classification of symmetric key management schemes
for wireless sensor networks. International Journal of
Security and Its Applications, 7(2), 117-138.
18